I know that's been the most critical milestone for Limit Theory. And I'm very happy it's been solved.

But I will admit to also thinking that, if there is ever a second game from Procedural Reality, Inc., this problem has now been solved for that game as well. Even if some of the ECS-scripting details are tweaked/improved, this is a foundational technology that instantly makes darn near any kind of game possible.

I think that's pretty cool.

One question: does this make LuaJIT garbage collection irrelevant? How does GC fit into the new model?

Hyperion wrote:Now, with ECP being orders of magnitude faster and more efficient, if you can make the Physics just as efficient, does this open the possibility for orbital mechanics?

Hrmm. What kind of orbital mechanics were you thinking of?

If you're thinking of planetary rotation and orbiting -- I know I have been -- my impression was that this isn't intended to happen not because of physics complexity or performance but because it would screw up tethering warp rail endpoints to fixed locations.

But maybe something in that has changed.

JanB1 wrote:This post will mark the end of my daily posts here in the forum. I'll only be able to check the forum every Saturday and Sunday starting from now for the next two months as already stated in the "I'm gonna be away..." thread in the "Everything" topic.

Excellent update, Josh! Really happy to hear everything's going so well! Now that we're completely sure performance is fine, will we move on to gameplay?

Nobody seems to need a non-technical summary this month, but I'll write one up if there's demand for it, as per usual.

Can I make a request, Tal?

Some of Josh's posts are a bit acronymtastic... can we get an acronym list made up and pasted at the bottom of his post? It's a standard thing for technical report writing (which some of Josh's posts are... )

Some of Josh's posts are a bit acronymtastic... can we get an acronym list made up and pasted at the bottom of his post? It's a standard thing for technical report writing (which some of Josh's posts are... )

That's actually a great idea And I could whip up a really quick python script that post-processes my update to make all the acronyms link to an 'LT Technicalpedia' entry. Or not.

But yeah. Good idea. I throw around a lot of jargon. I probably made most of it up At least this way we can give some meaning to my technical ramblings, even if Webster doesn't :V

I know that's been the most critical milestone for Limit Theory. And I'm very happy it's been solved.

But I will admit to also thinking that, if there is ever a second game from Procedural Reality, Inc., this problem has now been solved for that game as well. Even if some of the ECS-scripting details are tweaked/improved, this is a foundational technology that instantly makes darn near any kind of game possible.

I think that's pretty cool.

One question: does this make LuaJIT garbage collection irrelevant? How does GC fit into the new model?

Yes!! I'm loving that about the new engine in general. Feels like we're building a really solid foundation for the future (without that being an explicit goal, of course, because designing for the future is a fool's errand in the first place ).

Re GC: it definitely makes a certain percentage of it irrelevant. The higher that percentage, the higher the perf. My goal is 100%, so that we can turn off the GC entirely. That's actually a reasonable goal I believe, considering that we've already established how much of a difference having the data live in C makes. I will (and have already to some extent) make it as easy as possible for people to define new datatypes that can live on the C side, so that scripts can still have their own helper data and such without unknowingly invoking GC.

But even if we don't manage to do away with it entirely, keeping most of the data out of the Lua side makes GC way faster. GC times are roughly proportional to total Lua-allocated memory, so with 90% of the memory being managed by C, 90% of the GC's work goes away. It will be good

Some of Josh's posts are a bit acronymtastic... can we get an acronym list made up and pasted at the bottom of his post? It's a standard thing for technical report writing (which some of Josh's posts are... )

That's actually a great idea And I could whip up a really quick python script that post-processes my update to make all the acronyms link to an 'LT Technicalpedia' entry. Or not.

But yeah. Good idea. I throw around a lot of jargon. I probably made most of it up At least this way we can give some meaning to my technical ramblings, even if Webster doesn't :V

Woo, glad you like the idea... also, super pleased to see great news regarding the development of LT.